f 



7/3 



1. ^. ii^2c.A.,i^ ^:>'^->'^^ ^,-.*-^^ 

E713 ^. ^ ^, 

I f? Copy 1 

// 



HAWAIIAN ANNEXATION AND OUR 
FOREIGN POLICY. 



S P Ii E C H 



HON.JAMES D.RICHARDSON, 



OF TENNESSEE, 



HOUSE OP REPRKvSENTATlVES, 



Tuesday, June 14, 1898. 



\v A H I J I X o r () X. 

1898. 



^ 



of 






*- 



?7 



/3 



^ 



GSS^"* 



'jA: 



SPEECH 

Of 

HON. JAME8 D.11I0HAI1D80N. 



The House Laving under consider.ation the joint resolution (H.- Res. 350) to 
provide for annexing- the Hawaiian Islands to the United States- 
Mr. RICHARDSON said: 

Mr. Speaker: The proxiosition to annex the Sandwich Islands to 
the United States, with or without the consent of their popu- 
lation, meets with my unqualified and unalterable opposition. I 
am also opposed to the permanent conquest and acquisiton of 
Cuba, Puerto Rico, the Philippines, and all other isles of the sea. 
Nations have always acted, and should govern themselves at all 
times, upon principles entirely different from those which actuate 
individuals. I admit that individuals do. and should oftentimes, 
act for the good of others regardless to a greater or lesser extent 
of the resxtlt of their action on themselves. But this is not true 
of nations. 

Governments must base their action upon purely selfish consid- 
erations. In looking at the question of the annexation of Hawaii, 
or of any foreign territory, the only question that should enter into 
consideration by us is the one question: Is it best for the United 
States? The weal or woe, the misery or happiness, the poverty or 
prosperity of the foreigner or those to be annexed is not involved, 
and not to be considered in making up our minds as to the annexa- 
tion of foreign territory. 

I am so devout and devoted a lover of my own country that I 
admit without a moment's hesitation that there is no territory 
remote from or lying near by us that wotild not be better oft" in 
most if not all its conditions by annexation to and by becoming 
amalgamated with ours. The superiority of our institutions and 
the excellence of our form of government, which to my mind is 
the worlds ideal, place this matter beyond peradventure or dis- 
pute. 

The chief question, then, involved in the resolution before us to 
decide is, Shall we for our own benefit annex the Sandwich 
Islands? The laboring oar in this contention and in the effort to 
answer this interrogatory in the affirmative is upon those who 
favor the passage of the pending measure. The procedure or 
plan of annexation is of doubtful constitutionality and involves 
fundamental principles. The annexation of Hawaii and the ac- 
quisition of far-away colonies involves a ]iermanent policy that is 
far-reaching and of paramount importance to this Reimblic. It 
is, in my judgment, in palpable violation of all our traditions and 
our past conduct. 

We have not only not heretofore entered upon a policy of tho 
acqtiisition of foreign territory and of outlying colonies from 
3HV] :j 



■svbicli we are sopavatctl by seas and oceans, but, on the contrary, 
wo. have persistently and nnit'ornily maintained a different policy. 
We have been demonstrative and aggressive in the jjursuit of our 
policy. At tlie very outset of our existence as a nation the great- 
est of our great and tlie Avisest of our vrise men earnestly and elo- 
quently aclvocated the policy we have pursued. The policy of 
this (jrovernmcnt in respect to this matter, and indeed of all for- 
eign questions, was laid down in tlie beginning by Washington, 
Jetferson. INIadison, and Monroe, each of whom, in terras which 
can not be misunderstood, warned us of the dangers of foreign 
complications, of entangling alliances with other nations, and of 
annexing territory beyond the sea. 

For more than a century the policy so firmly established by 
these great men has been pui'sued with unbroken harmony, has 
proved a bulwark of strength to our own people, and at the same 
time has won for us the respect and admiration of the world. 
For one I shall not violate this policy and advocate another 
which to my mind is so un-American, unwise, and fraught with 
60 much danger to the Republic. I will not make a complete de- 
parture from the safe course we have followed so long and so 
profitably. 

1 am opposed to the new policj- provided in the pending measure 
because it is plainly in contravention of the Monroe doctrine. We 
can not as an enlightened people saj' to all the nations of the earth, 
" You shall not extend your possessions on this hemisphere,'" and at 
the same time reach out ourselves for lands and colonies in theirs. 

Mr. BERRY. I desire to ask the gentleman a question right 
here, because he is conversant with the Monroe doctrine. Does 
he say that the Monroe doctrine prohibits us from taking as a part 
of our countrj' an island 2,000 miles from our shores and 4,000 
miles from the nearest point of the Eastern Continent? Might not 
that island be more properly the jiroperty of the United States 
than of anv countrv that lies bevond the seas? 

Mr. WJNi. ALDEN SMITH. ' Is it not in the Western Hemi- 
sphere? 

Mr, RICHARDSON. I do not understand that the fact that 
Hawaii may be nearer to us than to any other country will interfere 
"with or prevent the application of the Monroe docti'ine. That 
doctrine in essence and spirit forbids our going out into the sea 
and the ocean to acquire territory. 

j\Ir. TAWNEY. Did we not do that in the Alaska purchase? 

Mr. RICHARDSON, I will come to that in a moment. The 
case which the gentleman mentions is not parallel with this. 

Mr. TAWNEY. Have we not done it in the case of fifty-seven 
islands which we have annexed, exclusive of the Aleutian Islands? 

Mr. RICHARDSON. I think not. Though separated in some 
degree, like the Florida reefs from Florida or the Aleutian Islands 
from Alaska, they are part and parcel of the territory annexed; 
and if we have annexed others of a different character it has been 
for mere coaling stations, or something ot that kind. 

Mr. TAWNEY. The fifty seven islands that I referred to are 
exclusive of the Aleutian Islands and in no way connected with 
the Alaska imrchase. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. They have not been annexed in the sense 
in wliich we propose to annex Hawaii. I will come to that point, 
I think, a little further on. 

]\Ir. TAWNEY. Tlie Island of Midway, a part of the Hawaiian 
group, is certainly an analogous case. 



Mr. RICHARDSON. If we are to (leinand of other nations that 
they keep their hands olf American colonies and not intermeddle 
wi til American affairs, it certainly behooves us, nay, it is impera- 
tively required of ns, to set them the exami)le by refraining from 
intermeddling with the affairs of Europe, in the Orient, and else- 
where, I am a firm believer in the Monroe doctrine in all its force 
and consequences. I would not modify it at all, and for this rea- 
son I would not invite its violation in letter or spirit by other 
nations by our attempting the conquest of territory beyond the 
seas. 

If I believed or could be convinced that such conquest and acqui- 
sition were essential to our longer existence as a free and inde- 
pendent people, I might hold a different opinion. If I believed 
that such a course contributed even remotely to our happiness 
and prosperity, I might entertain the abandonment of the views 
I am expressing. But, sir, a departure from the course we have 
piirsued under the guidance and inspiration of the fathers is not 
demanded for our happiness as a people, and, in my judgment, 
instead of bringing increased prosperity and blessings to our coun- 
try, will entail upon us decay and disaster, and finally dissolu- 
tion and death. I know it is claimed, in the consideration of thi3 
measure to annex Hawaii, that the acquisition of Cuba, the Philip- 
pines. Puerto Rico, and other colonies is not necessarily involved 
and should not be taken into consideration. If gentlemen are 
honest and sincere in this contention, they will not hesitate to 
support an amendment to the measure annexing Hawaii which I 
shall offer at the proper time, if no other gentleman does, declar- 
ing that a colonial policy is not to be entered upon and that acqui- 
sitions are to stop with Hawaii. 

But, sir, this measure is but the forerunner of others. It is the 
beginning of a new policy on our part. The boldest, if not the 
discreetest, of its advocates admit this. If the question stood by 
itself and did not involve other conquests or acquisitions, I should 
oppose it then as unwise. It is claimed that the annexation of 
Hawaii would strengthen tlie strategic position of the United 
States by giving us a great naval advantage; that, is the command 
of the eastern Pacific Ocean, thereby protecting our western 
coast. This contention must fail, as all will admit who listened 
attentively to the able argument of the gentleman from Arkansas 
[Mr. Dinsmore] on this point. But supposing this were admit- 
ted in a partial sense; what protection do we need that the pos- 
Bession of Hawaii would afford? 

In our present condition we do not need any such protection. It 
is only after we shall have entered upon the policy of conquest 
and annexation of outlying colonies that it can be truly said we 
need such protection. I concede if we ai-e to change our policy 
and enter upon that of colony and land grabbing as a nation, then 
we should need Hawaii and other remote islands and colonies. 
The acquisition of one creates at once the demand and a necessity 
which becomes urgent for others. When we start out on this 
new policy, we can not stop with the acquisition of one, but must 
go on until we absorb all. 

Let us enter upon such a policy and get our appetite once whetted 
in that direction, there will be no way of satisfying that appetite 
Tintil all the isles of the sea have been engulfed by us. Then our 
foreign complications will multiply beyond computation and war 
■will ensue. Indeed we should not emerge from one war before 
we would be plunged into another, until our Republic, which has 

3165 



hitherto loved peace and the ways thereof, will become the bully 
ot the world and the despised of all peoples. 

I do not mean to disparage or put in question our ability to fight 
successfully all the world it they only come to our shores and fight 
us upon our chosen ground. We might do this by reason of our 
inexhaustible resources, indomitable courage, and unfaltering i)a- 
triotism. But why provoke such a stupendous controversy? Can 
it be supposed that we can with one breath forbid all other nations 
(many of them of great power and fighting ability) to enter upon 
this hemisphere for an.y purpose whatever, and at once ourselves 
enter iipon the conquest or acquisition of or even interference 
with provinces in the Eastern Hemisphere or elsewhere? The 
position of this Republic has always been that of concentration 
and not diiiusion. 

Our policy has been to foster and build uxi the nation as a land 
power in contradistinction to sea power. Our position among na- 
tions is unique. No reason exists for a change in our policy. By 
its pursuit we have won and liave held the esteem and the admira- 
tion of the world. We should not be beguiled now by the glamour 
of conquest or the excitement of the hour engendered in a large 
degree by a recent great naval victory in a distant sea to abandon 
our well-chosen position. So long as we pursue the policies of 
the fathers and founders of the Republic and adhere to the prac- 
tices of the hundred years of the past which they bequeathed to us, 
and which have brought us unparalleled jirosperity and unalloyed 
happiness, we need no protection for the Pacific coast other than 
that which God has given us. 

Our position on our western coast and as a nation at large is 
exceptionally strong. We have no insular territories to defend. 
All our possessions are on our own continent, and, with the excep- 
tion of Alaska, all is continuous land territory. No navy of the 
world nor the combined navies of all nations can cut us off from 
our possessions. Our vast area and limits, with our opportuni- 
ties for defense, stand as imxiassable barriers to invasions from 
an}' part of our coast. 

Washington, in discussing our relations with foreign countries 
and reviewing subjects closely akin to the one involved in the 
pending resolution in his Farewell Address to the people of the 
United States, uttered words which I shall presently quote of un- 
surpassed wisdom. I would rejoice to-day if they could be read 
and understood in all their force, power, and beauty by all of our 
l)eoi)le everywhere. The following are his words: 

The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreicrn nations is, in extend- 
ing <jur commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as 
I)t)ssiljle. So far as we have already formed cngajjemeuts, let them be ful- 
lilled with perfect good f.iith. Hero lot us stop. 

Europe has a sot of primary interests which to us have none or a very re- 
mote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the 
(;anses of which are es.sentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it 
mu.st bo unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary 
vicissitudes of her politics or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her 
friendships or enmities. 

Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a dif- 
ferent cour.se. If wo remain one people, under an efficient (jovernment, tho 
Iteriod is not far off when we may defy material iniury from external annoy- 
ance; when we may take such an attitude as will c.-iuse the neutrality wo 
may at any time resolve iipon to be scrupulously respected: when beUiger- 
cnt nations, under tho impossibility of maki7ig aoquisitious upon us, will not 
li^'litly liazard the giving us provocation: when we may choose peace or war 
as out interest, guided Vjy justicf, shall counsel. 

Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own 
to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by intcfweaving our destiny with that 
316(i 



of any part of Europp, entangle onr peace aud prosperity in the t-)ils ol' 
European ambition, rivulship interest, humor, or caprice? 

Again Mr. Jefferson tanght ns that the true doctrine was anil is: 

Peace, commorce, and honest friendship with .ill nations— entangling alli- 
ances with none. 

Mr. GAINES. The gentleman will allow me to ask whether if 
we should acquire these islands it will not necessitate our hnild- 
ing and continuing to build a larger navy. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Yes; I will come to that point directly. 

Mr. Speaker, President Washington, it seems to me, coald see as 
if with the natural eye our present situation. 

Sir, we want no islands away out in the sea which can in a few 
days at any stage of our existence become the prey of hostile navies. 
The other great powers of the world, England, Frjince, Germany, 
Italy, and Spain, indeed, all the great nations, except, possibly, 
Russia, have such colonies and islands to defend; and while no 
one can truthfully say that the United States could not success- 
fully defend them, if she had them, it is the unwisdom of the policy 
of seizing and annexing them I am attempting to demonstrate. 

I am opposed to the new policy for another reason. It involves 
the building of a mighty navy and the maintenance of a standing 
army at all times of stupendous proportions and magnitude. 
These two thiugs will be absolutely necessary for the respectable 
enforcement of the new order of things. Why should we incur 
ihe enormous expense of a great navy for the Atlantic Ocean, an- 
other for the Gulf of Mexico, and a third for the Pacific Ocean? 
A corresponding increase will be required for a standing army. 

Mr. Speaker, we have had enough of war and of the expend- 
itures incident thereto. As a nation we are now, year by year, 
and every year, paying a tribute to war of $150,000,000 in the 
form of pensions alone. I fail to see in the near future any hope 
for a reduction on this account. On the other hand, the war with 
Spain in which we are engaged is to add how much no one can 
tell to our pension roll. In addition to this immense sum, we 
are also paying as a further annual tribute in the shape of inter- 
est on our public debt about §30,000,000 and to a sinking fund 
for its retirement the further sum of about §51,000,000. 

Why, then, should we incur the additional expenses for great 
armies and navies? They serve to provoke war sometimes when 
without them war could be avoided with honor. Enter upon tho 
new policy I am discussing and add to our present enormous ex- 
penses the still greater and more oppressive expenditures incident 
thereto, and we will lay excessive burdens on our people which 
will be without a parallel in their history. For one, representing 
a constituency as proud, patriotic, and intelligent as any repre- 
sented on this floor, I will not give my voice and votetoanymeas- 
nve or policy which in my judgment will create the necessity and 
lay the foundations for the fearful and extravagant expenditures 
to which I have referred. No nation prior to this period has 
sought or desired a conflict of arms with the United States. 

If nations act upon the principle I mentioned at the outset of 
my remarks — that is, that they govern themselves in their course 
and conduct toward other nations upon selfish grounds — why 
should they desire war with us? What could any nation gain by 
such a conflict of arms? All great powers realize that they have 
more to lose than to gain by war v.-ith us. Then let us not pro- 
voke them to attack us, but go on for all ages to come, growing in 
prosperity as the years and decades and even centuries go by. 



8 



adding each j'ear to the sum of human happiness by giving our 
jjeople the freest, the best, and most prosperous Government on 
the globe. 

Tlie otlier great nations I have mentioned have their outlying- 
colonies, and must maintain their powerful armies and navies, 
for the support of which excessive burdens in the shape of taxes 
are annually laid upon their people. Let i;s not grind the faces 
of our people bj* exorbitant taxation and make ourselves weak 
by enforcing a policy of colonial possessions. 

"Gentlemen in their stress for pjlausible arguments upon \vhich 
to place their advocacy of the annexation policy they now favor 
have referred to the former acquisitions of territory by our be- 
loved country. They cite the Louisiana i^urchase by Jefferson, 
and the annexation of Texas, with the actiuisitions of the Cali- 
fornias, etc., by Polk, and of the Floi'idas by Monroe. These, 
sir. are not parallel cases to the proposition we are now discussing. 
If Hawaii or the Philippines touched California, or Cuba touched 
Florida, there might be plausibility in such arguments and com- 
parisons. The former acquisitions by us of territory meant no 
change in our land or sea policy, no increase of our Army or Navy, 
no abandonment of the Monroe doctrine, and no entangling alli- 
ances with foreign peoples and courts. 

These acquisitions were almost or quite essential to our exist- 
ence as a republic. It is shocking to compare the aiinexation of 
Hawaii with the acquisition of the Louisiana territory alone, to 
say nothing of Texas and the Californias. I resent the compari- 
son as one totally unworthy to be made. Mr. Blaine, in his great 
book, speaking of the acquisition of the Louisiana territory by 
Mr, Jefferson, said: 

It brought incalculable wealth, power, and prestige to the CJnion, and must 
always bo regarded as the master stroke of policy which advanced the United 
States from a comparatively feeble nation lying between the Atlantic Ocean 
and the Mississippi River to a continental power of assured strength and 
boundless promise. 

Mr. Speaker, this was the largest conquest of territory ever 
achie ved without war. The cost v/as only about §15,000,000, a sum 
which does not equal the revenue which is collected by the Gov- 
ernment on its soil in a single month. The territory thus acquired 
was then, much of it — 

A solitude of vast extent, untouched 
By hand or art, where nature sowed herself 
And reaped her crops. 

This territory to-day comprises the States of Louisiana. Arkan- 
sas, Missouri, Iowa. Kansas, Nebraska, North and South Dakota, 
Wyoming, and Montana, nearly all of Minnesota, a portion of 
Colorado, and the Indian Territory. Reasonable and fair-minded 
men should not cite this as a precedent for the annexation of 
Hawaii. Let us look for a moment from that ])icture to the other. 
What do we get when we atinex Hawaii? According to the cen- 
.sus of 189G the population of these islands consisted of the follow- 
ing elements (omitting some of the smallest): 



Population. 


Number. 


Population. JSTumber. 


lTawniiaEs(puro and mixed) 


39,504 
2.5, 407 

1.5,291 


Americans 


3,080 


.lai)auo.sc 


' British . 


3,2.50 
1,433 


Chinese 




Portuguese 







CiOG 



It will be seen that in a population of about 109,000 only 3,080 
are Americans, 2,250 British, and 1,4:J2 Germans, the remainder, 
about fifteen-sixteenths, or nearly 16 to 1, being Japanese, Chinese, 
Portuguese, and natives of the Sandwich Islands, wholly unfit 
for free representative or local self-government. 

The advocates of the annexation of Hawaii have not told ua 
what we shall do with it after we get it. That is to say, they do 
not agree in their conclusions on this point. The able chairman 
of the Committee on Foreign Affairs. Mr. Hitt, failed and refused 
to tell us, when pointedly asked to do so, in his opening speech. 
He frankly admitted he did not know. Is it to become a State of 
the American Union? Heavenforbid! Two Senators in the other 
body and one Representative upon this floor Iroin the tree and 
sovereign State of Hawaii! Three more votes in the electoral col- 
lege, enough sometimes to settle the Presidency! May we ba 
spared such a travesty on our politics and institutions. 

Mr. JOHNSON of Indiana. The gentleman from Tennessee wiU 
allow me to remind him that the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Gros- 
venor], one of the most zealous advocates of annexation, said a 
few moments ago in the course of some very carefully prepared 
remarks: " I scorn to discuss what is to come from this annexa- 
tion," That is the kind of statesmanship we are invited to fol- 
low — a statesmanship that does not see an inch ahead of its nose. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. That is true. 

If it is not to become a State, what then shall we do with it? 
Shall it be held permanently as a Territory? Will it be contended 
that the inhabitants of those islands can govern themselves by 
and through a Territorial legislature? No one will make such a 
claim. 

Mr. BERRY. The gentleman will allow me to remind him that 
the treaty with reference to annexation provides that there shall 
be three commissioners representing this country and two repre- 
senting the Hawaiian Islands, who shall recommend measures to 
be passed upon by the Congress of the United States for the future 
government of the territory which we acquire. It is possible that 
in these two bodies there might be found wisdom enough to gov- 
ern these islands. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. The gentleman has anticipated a point to 
which I will come in a moment. We know that the attitude of 
a Territory with us has always been one of expectation and hope. 
Expectation and hope that it would soon be permitted to take 
upon itself the form, conditions, and responsibilities of a proud 
and equal State in the American Union. There is no reasonable 
hope that by time or circumstance the conditions in Hawaii will 
so radically and materially change and improve as to render the 
inhabitants thereof qualified to become citizens of a sovereign 
State. 

A hot sun, the tropical climate, the rough, barren, mountain- 
ous lands of a large portion of the islands, not to enlarge upon 
the fatal plague which unhappily afflicts them, all forbid their 
general occupation and tillage by our people. It seems to me 
they must inevitably remain the heritage of the Sandwich Islander, 
the Asiatic races, and half-breeds who can never approach to our 
American civilization nor partake of nor participate in our Amer- 
ican institutions. 

The only form of government then left for them would be a 
board or commission of some kind, appointed by the President of 
the United States to manage and control the affairs of the islands. 



10 

These boards would vary and change as Adminiatrations come 
and go with us. They woukl not be permanent, and, if they were, 
would be utterly and entirely in contravention of our hiws and 
institutions, which are rooted and grounded on the principles of 
equality and self-government. 

I oppose annexation again in the interest of labor and the labor- 
ing classes of our people. We have been enacting immigration 
laws for the protection of our homes. Congress has exhausted 
its resources in the efforts to pass wise measures prohibiting cer- 
tain classes by reason of their poverty, their ignorance, or diseased 
conditions from entering our ports and coming in competition 
■with our laborers and demoralizing our people. By the projiosed 
measure we annex the very classes we have sought to exclude by 
legislation from our shores. 

It is the supremesfc folly in Congress to formuhxte legislative 
anathemas against undesirable immigration from Europe and 
close the Pacitic coast, and, indeed, all ways of ingress to our coun- 
try, to the Chinese, and then in one act admit nearly 80,000 Chi- 
nese, Japanese, and Hawaiians to become a part of our popula- 
tion. We will probably by this act admit more Chinese than San 
Francisco now contains, besides many other obnoxious and objec- 
tionable foreigners. 

Mr. BERRY. Permit me to say that the treaty which we have 
been negotiating provides that no citizen of China and no native 
of the islands shall by reason of annexation become a citizen of 
the United States. 

Mr. SMITH of Arizona. We are not considering their citizen- 
ship, but their presence. 

Mr. BERRY. But the gentleman from Tennessee is arguing 
that they are to be admitted as citizens. 

Mr. BLAND. Will the gentleman from Kentuckj^ say that any 
treaty with those people is above the Constitution? 

Mr. BERRY. You have now laws upon your statute books pro- 
hibiting Chinamen from becoming citizens of this country, and 
that provision is only reasserted in the constitution of that country. 

Mr. BLAND. The constitution makes every native of that 
island a citizen. 

Mr. BERRY. Yes. but you have done away with that. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. The trouble is that we undertake to an- 
nex to our country and make a part of it a population that can 
not come among us and bo a part of us; and that is really incon- 
sistent with the idea of our Cxovernment under our Constitution. 

Mr. Speaker, in this connection I desire to say, in my opinion, 
it is monstrous to contemplate the evil effects upon the laboring 
people of our land and upon the American farmer if this Govern- 
ment embarks upon the plan of imperial colonization. 

The cheap cooly labor of the tropical colonies we would ac- 
quire, directed and managed by competent hands, and their prod- 
ucts manipulated by world-wide trusts would close wp all our 
sugar industries, both of cane and beets, destroy our tobacco 
growing and tobacco manufacture, and so cheapen our Southern 
l)roducts of cotton, rice, hemp, and all fiber crops, by the compe- 
tition and increased prodiiction in the East and West Indies, and 
other tropical colonies as to forever destroy these industries in 
the United States. We have been forced to endure prices below 
the cost of the production of nearly all of these commodities for 
years past under a high protective tariff system, but these former 
low prices would be prosperity itself as compared with those 
which would obtain under the new system. 

3^Cj 



11 

It is contended by some persons that we must enter upon the 
policy ol annexation in order to extend our commerce and to 
plant our flag in all harbors. In order to do this they say we 
must of necessity change our former course and conduct and must 
possess a powerful navy. I grant you it is desirable to widen our 
markets and extend our trade with other nations. They i-ay, and 
truthfully, that commerce follows the flag. But let me as!c,how 
are we to inaugurate and pursue this new policy successfully unless 
we abandon that old policy which its advocates proudly denomi- 
nate the American policy, a policy which we have heretofore pur- 
sued and which is altogether at variance with the proposed new 
one? 

It is all ver J' well to talk of commerce following the flag and of 
sending our merchant ships abroad until their sails whiten every 
sea. This is a consummation devoutly to be wished. But I sub- 
mit we can not hold fast to the policy of a high protective tariff 
and at the same time whiten every sea with the sails of our mer- 
chantmen. Commerce will never follow very enthusiastically the 
flag of that nation which hedges itself in as by a Chinese Wall 
with high protective tariff rates and schedules. We can not ex- 
pect nations and peo]jles to come to us to buy when by law we 
forbid them to bring something to sell to us. And thus we find 
again that the friends and advocates of the new policy are con- 
fronted with another insurmountable obstacle. 

Mr. HEPBURN. Will the gentleman permit me to ask him a 
question? 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Yes, if it is along the line of what I am 
talldng about. 

Mr. HEPBURN. Does not the gentleman think that the ex- 
perience of this year, when our exports wdl exceed our imports 
by §600,000,000, disputes his proposition and disproves it? 

Mr. RICHARDSON. No; I do not think that at all. The gen- 
tleman is speaking of present conditions, while I am speaking 
of and attempting to depict the future condition which will be 
brought about by reason of the new ijolicy, which I am attempt- 
ing to show is unwise. 

Mr. HEPBURN. The condition of a protective tariff exists 
now, and the exports this year exceed the imports by SGOO.000.000. 

Mr. BERRY. That is on account of the exportation of wheat. 

Mr. GAINES. Hungrv Europe did that. 

Mr. RICHARDSON. That may be for some reason which I 
am not going to discuss now, but the conditions will materially 
change then, and if they are at all prosperous now, they will fail 
to be under the new policy which I am attempting to describe. 
Mr. Speaker, unless they can batter down and demolish the hith- 
erto impregnable fortress of protection their contention in favor 
of annexation and an increase in our Navy, to the end that our 
commerce may be extended and our markets increased, must 
fail. 

I heard a distinguished member of this Hoiise in a public speech 
a few days ago say we hud already entered upon the new era, that 
our time-honored policy had been abandoned, and that henceforth 
we were to acquire and permanently hold colonies everj'wliere. 
This thought, too. was liberally app'auded by his audience. Like 
the commercial firm in the well-known play of the '• Gilded Fool," 
we are "to progress," Vv'e are "to reach out." I do not subscribe 
to this doctrine. I deny that that is to be our policy. 

What, sir, was the first solemn declar:ition made by this Con- 

Si66 



12 

gress. and whicli was approved by the Chief Executive of the na- 
tion, when we entered upon the present war a httle over thirty 
days gone by? In declaring war we announced openly to all the 
world a wholly different course of conduct. That policy we then 
avowed with emphasis and unanimity is contained in the resolu- 
tion I now quote, and which forms a part of our solemn declara- 
tion as we took up arms and made our appeal to Him who controls 
the destiny of nations. It is as follows: 

Resolred, That the United States hereby disclaims any disposition or inten- 
tion toexerciso sovereignty, jiirisdietiou, or control over said island [meaning 
the Island of CubaJ except for the pacification thereof, and asserts its deter- 
mination when that is accomplished to leave the government and control of 
the island to its people. 

Mr. Speaker, many of us thought and undertook to teach our 
people that when our Government, speaking through its repre- 
sentatives, solemnly gave this pledge to all mankind we were hon- 
est and sincere; that when she drew her sword and unfurled her 
flag in this contest, it was to wage a holy war (if war can ever be 
holy) for humanity. It was not supposed it was to degenerate 
into a campaign of conquest or boodle. 

During this entire controversy Spain, our adversary, through 
her statesmen and public journals, has persistently charged that 
the sole object of the war on our part was not humanity, but that 
we were bent on despoiling her of her territory. We have denied 
it. Shall we by our own action now or hereafter prove that her 
allegations were true and that our own were false? If we are to 
be justified at all before the world for our part in this terrible 
war, for all war is terrible, let us not take advantage of the situa- 
tion to add one foot of territory to our now already ample domain. 

Let us demonstrate not only to Spain but to all the world that 
the people of the United States had but one object and purpose 
in this great controversy, and that was and is to see that justice 
is done oven though the heavens fall. Let Cuba be made free and 
Spain removed with all her mediaeval cruelties and atrocious 
crimes from this hemisphere, and then the only pui'pose we have 
or can have in this war will have been accomplished. 

Wr. Frederic R. Coudert, who is a recognized authority on in- 
ternational questions, was asked his views on the subject I am 
discussing, a few days ago. I take the liberty of quoting here 
what he said, for he expresses the opinion of many thinking men 
in our country. He said: 

In a very few words I can tail you what, in my opinion, the United States 
should do with the Philiiipino Islands— 

In tlu! first place, Rear-Admiral Dewey should blow up the fortifications, 
turn the islands over to the insurgents, and then sail with his fleet for home. 
The iusni'-'eiits are the ones to settle all questions as to the future govern- 
ment of th(3 :ii-i-lui)elago, and we should put them in a position to do so, and 
then leavi^ them alone. 

We started to accomplish one single, declared, definite object, a most noble 
one, based i)urely on humauir;irian grounds. Our sincerity in our philan- 
thropic- professions is the only possible excuse for the war. To maintain 
good faith and our reiiutation with the rest of the w^orld is worth a dozen 
Philippines and millions of ccjolies, Chinamen, and Malays. 

We may count upon the symi)athy of Europe so long as we adhere to our 
programme as deliberately set forth to the entire world. We can only de- 
pend upon .iealousy and distrust if wo depart from it. "Wo told Spain she 
must leave Cuba. The war was entered upon to drive her from the island. 
That was our declared object, and we should do all that is properly neces- 
sary under the laws of war for the purpose without departure from that 
object. 

I quote the following from the American Agriculturist: 
The j)<)li<'y of colonial exjian-iion, now so extravagantly urged in interested 
quarters, may not at present cjntemiihite interference in European politics. 

Mm 



13 

but such interference would be loss .1 iloparturo from tlio now policy tbau 
this policy is a departure from the Monroe doctrine. The new idea sounds 
very grand at first, and in the Hush of victory the appeal to extend our dom- 
ination beyond the seas is so alluring that the consequences of such uctioa 
are lost sight of. 

The policy ot colonial empire would at once expose us to embroilment with 
other nations. It would vastly magnify the power and expense of Army and 
Navy. It would perpetuate increased taxes. It would inaugurate an era 
of corruption in our forei.gn possessions, a debasement of the blood, that 
could not fail to in time affect the physical and mental stamina of our pcoplo 
at home. It woiild be un-American, unwise, unconstitutional, and in results 
unworthy of the effort. 

On still higher ground a colonial policy is objectionable. It would degen- 
erate the holiest war ever waged for humanity into a campaign of conquest. 
This would lower the United' States before the world, but its moral effect 
upon our own people would be still worse. 

The gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Dinsmore] in his opening 
remar.is quoted Hon. John Sherman, as he gave his opinion in his 
great book a few years since, as to the conquest or acquisition of 
foreign territory. He showed that Mr. Sherman in his pahny 
days opposed such a policy. I now quote here from a recent in- 
terview with him published in the St. Louis Republic of May 29. 
This interview shows he is still opposed to conquest of territory. 
On the subject of the war he was asked: 

''Will it become a war of conquest?" He replied; 

" Certainly not. We want neither the Philippines nor Ctiba. We want no 
foreign outposts which we will have to defend with our ships. We do not 
want to be constantly in trouble with France, Germany, and possibly Eng- 
land. This is a self-contained nation. It has limitless resources in' itself. 
It wants no entanglements with forei.gn nations. It wants to keep them off 
its shores and it wants to keep off theirs. Our trade treaties with every 
civilized nation on the globe are sufficient. 

Mr. Speaker, I could quote other eminent authorities, but time 
and space will not permit. 

There may be something alluring in a policy of annexation and 
conquest of territory. An individual naturally feels as if he were 
adding riches and wealth to himself when he acquires lands and 
tenements. This is true of a nation under some circumstances. 
There are no colonies or possessions open to us, however, the ac- 
quisition of which would add to our wealth. We should not then 
demoralize our people by a departure from our uniform course of 
action for more than a century and that which I have just shown 
was our avowed policy at the oittset of our impending war with 
Spain. 

If we "reach out," as we are advised by some to do, and ex- 
pand our policies and rule of action, we will assuredly neglect our 
domestic interests. Our Army and Navy will be increased, our 
foreign policy will be developed, our interest in other nations will 
Ibe enhanced, but our home interests, which vitally concern and 
deeply affect all our home people, will be neglected or abandoned. 
Let us give more careful and serious attention to our internal 
affairs and foster and develop our home concerns. 

Let us strive to give our people better educational opportuni- 
ties, a better banking system, more mail facilities, free deliveries 
and cheaper postage, better roads, improved waterways, better 
protection against monopolies, better laws to control corporate 
greed and extortion, better laws for the regulation of trtists. b; ttcr 
laws for the distribution of the currency, and impose lighter bur- 
dens of taxation upon the country, and, in short, the reform of all 
existing abuses. We do not want the enemies of social progress 
and of good government to hold high carnival at home while Na- 
tional and State legislatures are entirely engrossed concerning 
themselves with our newlj^ acquired wards, many of them much 
31GG 



14 

"off in color," in far-away colonies, and v.ath onr business rela- 
tions with foreign nations. 

Again. Mr. Speaker, if the era of territorial pelf and pillage has 
begun with ns as a nation, and we are to start out for more terri- 
tory and greater landed possessions, we should not begin the at- 
tack iipon a poor, weak, and half-civilized nation, such as Spain. 
As a brave, courageous, and self-respecting people, we should 
commence this warfare with some government that ranks in the 
first class in the family of nations. For our country to seize the 
colonies of Spain for permpvnent use and occupation would place 
us on a i>av in our action v,-ith that of the giant who robs a dwarf 
or a big boy among school children despoiling the small boy of 
his favorite marbles. 

As a brave and powerful people, if we are really in need of other 
lands and must have them, we should either buy them and pay for 
them or should say to Great Britain, "You must withdraw from 
this continent." Why not say to her that we need Canada and 
intend to have that country? This would be the manly thing to do 
and would give u s contiguous territory of great value and resources. 
If a change of policy is determined upon and we must of necessity 
rob somebody, why not attack Great Britain, a member of our class, 
and proceed to take that v.iiich is valuable and worth possessing? 
Do not despoil the weak by seizing that which is worthless, and 
degrade and dishonor ourselves in the act. 

Mr. Speaker, as I am about to close, allow me to sum np briefly 
something of what the new i^olicy means: 

1. It means the abandonment of the Monroe doctrine, a doctrine 
which is the guiding star of the Western Hemisphere, and next 
to the Constitution itself has been the greatest blessing to our 
land. 

2. It means the abandonment of economy and simple govern- 
ment, which Jefferson, the father of Democracy, said was a land- 
mark thereof. 

3. It means immense standing armies and powerful navies. 

4. It means the admission of undesirable foreigners into our 
midst to corrupt our body politic and impair true American insti- 
tutions. 

5. It means the magnifying of the National Government and 
national power, as against local and State authority. It is central- 
ization itself. 

(). It means colonies abroad of foreign tongues and nationalities 
ruled by military satriips instead of self-governing States in har- 
mony with republican institutions. 

7. It means the neglect and consequent decay of our local home 
governments and domestic concerns, the bulwarks of our strength 
and glory in the past. 

8. It means odious entangling alliances with other nations. 

9. It means wars on land and wars on the sea. 

10. It means the downfall of the protective system and the first 
step in the march toward free trade. 

11. It means a very largo falling off in revenues from tariff 
duties and a correspondingly large increase in internal taxes, 
which so much imjioverish the country and vex the taxpayer. 

12. It means the destruction of the American farmer, that happy 
and independent class who have always been the peculiar pride of 
our beloved and favored land. 

Those are some of the things which will inevitably follow the 
new policy. 



15 

Mr. Speaker, we need no additional territorj'. Our domain is 
now ample and sufficient. We have an area exclusive of Alaska 
of 3,025,000 square miles, and including Alaska of ;),5r)7,000 square 
miles. We have existed as a Republic something over one hundred 
years. Our development has been marvelous and our prosperity 
unprecedented. We have now a population of 70,000,000 of peo- 
ple and can easily accommodate 500.000,000. 

We have a climate varied and temperate, in v»diich flourish 
abundant crops of all the cereals, as well as the tropical fruits; 
broad acres which in fertility rival those of the famed banks of the 
Nile; mineral re sources comprising in part gold, silver, iron, coal, 
lead, copper, zinc, etc. , which are inexhaustible in supply; railroads, 
telegraph, telephone, and all other improvements which annihi- 
late time and space, uneriualed by any; the grandest lakes and the 
mightiest rivers: a civilization which is unsurpassed; and have more 
newspapers and better ones to disseminate the news and elevate 
public thought; more churches in which to worship the true and 
living God; more manufactories in which are produced moretlian 
three- fifths of the manufactured products of the world; more 
schoolliousesin which theyouthof our land is educated and trained 
for life's battles; more happy homes, and, in short, in every con- 
ceivable fashion we have more to bless our lands and people than 
any nation on this globe. 

Let us, then, be content with that which we have. We should 
hold fast to the old and good, and strive not for the new and the 
bad. And supremest and above all else, our people North, South, 
East, and West, from ocean to ocean and from the pines of the North 
to the magnolias of the South, are once more lovingly united. 
All sectional animosities have been dissipated, a new era of peace 
and good will among men has been inaugurated — 

And all the clouds that lower'd upon our house, 
lu the deep bosom of the ocean buried. 

Henceforth and forever we are to be one people — one in mind, 
one in sentiment, one in patriotic endeavor, one in our hopes and 
aspirations, one in all that make a nation great, one in all that 
make a free people contented, prosperous, and happy. 

S46C 

O 



LiBKHKY Ul- CUNbKti>i> \ 



013 717 918 % 



